Opinion
2260-21
03-10-2022
Brandon Sowers Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
L. Paige Marvel, Judge
This case is calendared for trial at the Court's Atlanta, Georgia, Trial Session of the Court that is scheduled to begin on April 4, 2022.
On January 4, 2021, the Court filed a letter from petitioner with an attached copy of a notice of deficiency issued to him for tax year 2018, as an imperfect petition. On March 23, 2021, the Court issued an order directing petitioner to file an amended petition by May 7, 2021. On May 3, 2021, petitioner filed his amended petition, contesting respondent's disallowance of a moving expense deduction that petitioner had claimed on his 2018 Federal income tax return (2018 return). On February 1, 2022, petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment and an unsworn declaration in support of the motion for summary judgment. On March 2, 2022, respondent filed a response to the motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Court's order issued February 10, 2022.
When a party files a motion for summary judgment, that party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 121(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. See also Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992) aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the factual materials and the inferences drawn from them must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 554 (2000); Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 36 (1993).
Respondent opposes petitioner's motion and disputes petitioner's assertion that he has substantiated the moving expense deduction claimed on his 2018 return. Respondent contends that there are genuine disputes of material fact that must be resolved through trial and that petitioner is not entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law in any event. Respondent alleges that petitioner has failed to provide respondent with the invoices and receipts for payments of moving expenses during 2018 or with documents to substantiate that petitioner was a qualified member of the Armed Forces, or a spouse or dependent of an active member of the Armed Services in 2018. We agree with respondent that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute or that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Rule 121.
It is apparent from a review of the motion papers that this case requires a trial to develop the evidentiary record. Evidence is received by the Court by means of the stipulation and trial process. See Rules 91 and 143, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner is strongly encouraged to exchange documents with respondent's counsel to substantiate petitioner's moving expenses, to agree upon a stipulation of relevant facts and documents in the event this case goes to trial, and to communicate with respondent's counsel in an effort to settle the case or otherwise prepare for trial. Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's motion for summary judgment, filed February 1, 2022, is denied.